Are criminal charges appropriate if speech is sufficiently, but only, offensive?

[Atreus21]

Finland's ex-interior minister goes on trial for anti-LGBT hate speech

Päivi Räsänen is accused of inciting hatred after making the comments on Twitter in 2019.

www.euronews.com

Päivi Räsänen: Finland's ex-interior minister goes on trial for anti-LGBT+ hate speech

Whether you agree with this person or not, should governments be allowed to criminalize "hate speech"?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Uncertain - it depends on who gets to decide what is “sufficiently offensive” and based on what (if any) objective standard. There are many acts which can (and do) result in civil action, yet do not rise to the level of being criminal.

 

[Atreus21]

Uncertain - it depends on who gets to decide what is “sufficiently offensive” and based on what (if any) objective standard. There are many acts which can (and do) result in civil action, yet do not rise to the level of being criminal.

The question pertains to criminal charges, not civil ones. That's what this MP in Finland is facing.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

To me, and this is just an opinion not based on knowledge of law, it depends more on HOW the message is delivered than the message itself.

For instance: in the USA I could say "I dont like smelly drunk Irishman that fight a lot" (I am an Irishman so I get a pass on this stereotype )and that would be my right and should not be "illegal".

Now...if I took to following people around or directing harassing or threatening language, telephone calls, emails, etc at them because they are a smelly drunk Irishman, thats a different story. But harassment has laws against it already and really is more than just "speech" IMO.
I dont think what she said should be "illegal" in the US no, but she sounds like a real loon and would be unfit for public elected office, and should definitely be removed from office in Finland, or the US. This is extremely harmful speech coming from a person in a position of authority. IMO.

**EDIT I answered uncertain, I am leaning toward "no, not illegal" but I could possibly be persuaded to change my mind on that.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The question pertains to criminal charges, not civil ones. That's what this MP in Finland is facing.

I have no idea what (if any) laws exist to protect speech in Finland. Therefore, I’m not limiting my response based on that example alone.

 

[Atreus21]

To me, and this is just an opinion not based on knowledge of law, it depends more on HOW the message is delivered than the message itself.

For instance: in the USA I could say "I dont like smelly drunk Irishman that fight a lot" (I am an Irishman so I get a pass on this stereotype )and that would be my right and should not be "illegal".

Now...if I took to following people around or directing harassing or threatening language, telephone calls, emails, etc at them because they are a smelly drunk Irishman, thats a different story. But harassment has laws against it already and really is more than just "speech" IMO.
I dont think what she said should be "illegal" in the US no, but she sounds like a real loon and would be unfit for public elected office, and should definitely be removed from office in Finland, or the US. This is extremely harmful speech coming from a person in a position of authority. IMO.

Threats should not be protected speech, agreed. That's more than just offensive.

What I want to know is, should speech that is only offensive be criminal? Rather, should governments be permitted to criminalize it?

 

[Atreus21]

I have no idea what (if any) laws exist to protect speech in Finland. Therefore, I’m not limiting my response based on that example alone.

But what is your opinion on criminal charges for offensive speech? Should governments be able to do that?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Threats should not be protected speech, agreed. That's more than just offensive.

What I want to know is, should speech that is only offensive be criminal? Rather, should governments be permitted to criminalize it?

I see your distinction.

This person here was in a position of authority in the government. Or still is. Saying that some of your citizens, are an 'abomination unto god" blah blah blah or whatever, thats disgusting so "offensive" yes, I also think that her words could ACTUALLY DAMAGE some people physically because it stirs up hate and may lead to people taking action. Similar to "inciting a riot" or inciting violence or something like that.
I'm glad she cant run her piehole like she was doing, but the problem arises of course when someone comes along and decides that its the stuff that you and I are saying thats "offensive" and should be outlawed.
Now that could be a real problem!

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

Finland's ex-interior minister goes on trial for anti-LGBT hate speech

Päivi Räsänen is accused of inciting hatred after making the comments on Twitter in 2019.

www.euronews.com

Päivi Räsänen: Finland's ex-interior minister goes on trial for anti-LGBT+ hate speech

Whether you agree with this person or not, should governments be allowed to criminalize "hate speech"?

They could do whatever fits within their laws. In the US, there is freedom of speech so the answer would be no, but of course, there are some exceptions.

Anyway, thanks to free speech, we have rich asshole capable of outright lying, calilng it news, to dupe morons into voting for people who give away the treasury to those wealthy people. So having free speech is not without its consequences. Like we are seeing now from vanilla isis

 

[ttwtt78640]

But what is your opinion on criminal charges for offensive speech? Should governments be able to do that?

As I said, it depends on the objective standard used to define “sufficiently offensive”.

 

[aociswundumho]

Threats should not be protected speech, agreed.

Why not? People should never be punished for saying or writing threatening words. Words alone - with no other evidence - do not make a credible threat, and the threat has to be credible before you can morally act against the person making it.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Voted uncertain, mainly because this is apples and oranges comparison between Finland and the US.

In principle the true test of a right to free speech is the consequence of being responsible for what you say. What that does not mean is government limitation on speech but there is a balance between your right and weaponizing that right over someone else. When you dive into a rabbit hole of what is and is not "offensive" or what is and is not just opinion then you are begging for government to be where it should not.

Where we run into problems is when speech incites some other action (by that person or an audience.)

This case in Finland, against Päivi Räsänen, is more or less a show piece with the only outcome being some fine and probably continued pressure from opposition because of.

But that said there is a legitimate concern over saying homosexuality is a "disorder of psychosexual development" in a manner that invokes shaming. That is only going to lead to various isolations, violence, and lack of social cohesion that is ironically a social disorder.

We run into a whole lot of trouble with this when we assume a right means no responsibility for exercising that right.

 

[Atreus21]

I see your distinction.

This person here was in a position of authority in the government. Or still is. Saying that some of your citizens, are an 'abomination unto god" blah blah blah or whatever, thats disgusting so "offensive" yes, I also think that her words could ACTUALLY DAMAGE some people physically because it stirs up hate and may lead to people taking action. Similar to "inciting a riot" or inciting violence or something like that.

Can't agree there. Incitement must be direct and clear. "Go hence and kill these people." By your standard any criticism at all can be construed as incitement.

I'm glad she cant run her piehole like she was doing, but the problem arises of course when someone comes along and decides that its the stuff that you and I are saying thats "offensive" and should be outlawed.
Now that could be a real problem!

But (assuming you're not joking) that's just the point. What we say now could land us in hot water if people who hate our guts came to power tomorrow, if they had the power to throw people in jail for speech they found offensive.

 

[Atreus21]

Voted uncertain, mainly because this is apples and oranges comparison between Finland and the US.

In principle the true test of a right to free speech is the consequence of being responsible for what you say. What that does not mean is government limitation on speech but there is a balance between your right and weaponizing that right over someone else. When you dive into a rabbit hole of what is and is not "offensive" or what is and is not just opinion then you are begging for government to be where it should not.

Where we run into problems is when speech incites some other action (by that person or an audience.)

This case in Finland, against Päivi Räsänen, is more or less a show piece with the only outcome being some fine and probably continued pressure from opposition because of.

But that said there is a legitimate concern over saying homosexuality is a "disorder of psychosexual development" in a manner that invokes shaming. That is only going to lead to various isolations, violence, and lack of social cohesion that is ironically a social disorder.

We run into a whole lot of trouble with this when we assume a right means no responsibility for exercising that right.

I think that is far too loose a definition of incitement. It doesn't take much to shoehorn incitement into any sort of criticism at all by that standard. Any criticism of anyone might lead to isolation, violence or lack of social cohesion.

To my mind, incitement must be clear and unambiguous. "Go and do A to party B." It must be a command or request to do something harmful. If, "I think X is very bad" is incitement because it may plausibly lead a listener to conclude "I must isolate/damage/harm X", then any criticism at all can be construed as incitement. Is that not true?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Can't agree there. Incitement must be direct and clear. "Go hence and kill these people." By your standard any criticism at all can be construed as incitement.



But (assuming you're not joking) that's just the point. What we say now could land us in hot water if people who hate our guts came to power tomorrow, if they had the power to throw people in jail for speech they found offensive.

Right. But she is talking real dark age bloodletting and witchburnings, and she's in a position of "leadership". And its their country...so yeah it doesnt bother me.

many people in the US dont seem to be able to handle their "freedom", they try to eat it all at one big gulp and CHOKE on it, unfortunately. More freedom than brains.

Can't agree there. Incitement must be direct and clear. "Go hence and kill these people."

I think that blm chanting "we want dead cops" and such was very inciteful. Being in the government and saying "gays are an abomination on earth" and shit is an extreme case. I say we have the law against extreme cases, and I will be the sole and final judge as to what is and what will not be allowed.
Let it be written!
*slams gavel*

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Uncertain - it depends on who gets to decide what is “sufficiently offensive” and based on what (if any) objective standard. There are many acts which can (and do) result in civil action, yet do not rise to the level of being criminal.

I voted yes, but I mostly agree with what you said.

The concept of "hate speech" is pretty nebulous. I don't think the standard should be "offense" but instead harm. I think a good example of what I mean would be Alex Jones and pizza gate, where someone actually went to that pizza store with a gun. Again with his Sandy Hook conspiracy spreading where the families of the victims started to get death threats because people thought they were CIA operatives or something.

I know Alex Jones is getting hit with some lawsuits, but that would be a case where I would be comfortable with criminal charges.

 

[Atreus21]

Right. But she is talking real dark age bloodletting and witchburnings, and she's in a position of "leadership". And its their country...so yeah it doesnt bother me.

many people in the US dont seem to be able to handle their "freedom", they try to eat it all at one big gulp and CHOKE on it, unfortunately. More freedom than brains.

I don't know what she actually said. I suppose I'd better look it up. But I assume she didn't say, "go and kill the gays."

I think that blm chanting "we want dead cops" and such was very inciteful. Being in the government and saying "gays are an abomination on earth" and shit is an extreme case. I say we have the law against extreme cases, and I will be the sole and final judge as to what is and what will not be allowed.
Let it be written!
*slams gavel*

I think even what BLM said isn't quite incitement. That's probably exactly what they intended.

Saying what they want, even if it's horrifying, isn't the same as them saying, "Go kill cops."

 

[Drowning Man]

I'm mostly for freedom of speech. But, I'll fully admit that there is such a thing as the Freedom of Speech Paradox.

 

[Atreus21]

I voted yes, but I mostly agree with what you said.

The concept of "hate speech" is pretty nebulous. I don't think the standard should be "offense" but instead harm. I think a good example of what I mean would be Alex Jones and pizza gate, where someone actually went to that pizza store with a gun. Again with his Sandy Hook conspiracy spreading where the families of the victims started to get death threats because people thought they were CIA operatives or something.

I know Alex Jones is getting hit with some lawsuits, but that would be a case where I would be comfortable with criminal charges.

If:

1. I say on twitter, "Abortion is wrong" and....
2. Someone shoots up an abortion clinic and claims he did it because I said abortion was wrong, and....
3. We consider that incitement, then.....
4. Any criticism at all can be considered incitement, whether one's criticism was mild (abortion is wrong) or severe (pro-abortion people love the sight of mutilated dead babies.)

 

[Lutherf]

Finland's ex-interior minister goes on trial for anti-LGBT hate speech

Päivi Räsänen is accused of inciting hatred after making the comments on Twitter in 2019.

www.euronews.com

Päivi Räsänen: Finland's ex-interior minister goes on trial for anti-LGBT+ hate speech

Whether you agree with this person or not, should governments be allowed to criminalize "hate speech"?

Well, in this case she seems to have described homosexuality as a form of psychological dysfunction and then had the audacity to bring religion into the conversation. While many of us would not characterize such comments as "hate speech" I can certainly understand how a mass of pinko, commie, tree hugging liberals would see it as such and seek to prosecute it. That's the beauty of being a liberal. Everything you say and do is right and everything everyone else does is hateful and wrong.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I voted yes, but I mostly agree with what you said.

The concept of "hate speech" is pretty nebulous. I don't think the standard should be "offense" but instead harm. I think a good example of what I mean would be Alex Jones and pizza gate, where someone actually went to that pizza store with a gun. Again with his Sandy Hook conspiracy spreading where the families of the victims started to get death threats because people thought they were CIA operatives or something.

I know Alex Jones is getting hit with some lawsuits, but that would be a case where I would be comfortable with criminal charges.

The problem with that idea, is that it leaves it (entirely?) up to others (perhaps violent nuts) to decide what speech allegedly ‘caused’ them to act out.

If person A uses the N-word and nothing happens is that somehow legally different from person B using the N-word and that allegedly resulting in a third person committing a violent act?

Should the fact that a Bernie Sanders supporter shot a congress critter lead to assigning blame to some words spoken by Bernie Sanders?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

If:

1. I say on twitter, "Abortion is wrong" and....
2. Someone shoots up an abortion clinic and claims he did it because I said abortion was wrong, and....
3. We consider that incitement, then.....
4. Any criticism at all can be considered incitement, whether one's criticism was mild (abortion is wrong) or severe (pro-abortion people love the sight of mutilated dead babies.)

You're presenting this as a slippery slope, as if we haven't already partially legally had systems in place to deal with this for decades.

Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years.

18 U.S. Code § 373 - Solicitation to commit a crime of violence

www.law.cornell.edu

I believe comments like the ones Alex Jones made could be considered acts of stochastic terrorism. To address @ttwtt78640 and your point as to where the line should be/how it should be determined, I believe saying things that would lead "a reasonable person" to commit violence. For example, Alex Jones didn't "criticize" the Pizza shop, he claimed they were running a literally ****ing child sex trafficking ring and sacrificing babies for adrenochrome.

Someone simply commiting violence and citing you as the reason isn't enough. If someone attack Alex Jones because of the comments that I made about him here, I do not think I should be held responsible for that.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I think that is far too loose a definition of incitement. It doesn't take much to shoehorn incitement into any sort of criticism at all by that standard. Any criticism of anyone might lead to isolation, violence or lack of social cohesion.

To my mind, incitement must be clear and unambiguous. "Go and do A to party B." It must be a command or request to do something harmful. If, "I think X is very bad" is incitement because it may plausibly lead a listener to conclude "I must isolate/damage/harm X", then any criticism at all can be construed as incitement. Is that not true?

That is not what I am getting at.

My question boils down to when does free speech include having to tolerate the intolerant?

 

[dockside]

Finland's ex-interior minister goes on trial for anti-LGBT hate speech

Päivi Räsänen is accused of inciting hatred after making the comments on Twitter in 2019.

www.euronews.com

Päivi Räsänen: Finland's ex-interior minister goes on trial for anti-LGBT+ hate speech

Whether you agree with this person or not, should governments be allowed to criminalize "hate speech"?

Are you referring to Finland which has different laws than the U.S.? If so, none of our business. If not, where do the laws in the U.S. criminalize hate speech? Please cite the law and circumstances, if any, under which someone has been tried as a criminal for purely offensive hate speech.

 

[SCrider]

Finland's ex-interior minister goes on trial for anti-LGBT hate speech

Päivi Räsänen is accused of inciting hatred after making the comments on Twitter in 2019.

www.euronews.com

Päivi Räsänen: Finland's ex-interior minister goes on trial for anti-LGBT+ hate speech

Whether you agree with this person or not, should governments be allowed to criminalize "hate speech"?

What are the laws in that particular country?